Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

OpenText LoadRunner Professional vs Spirent Avalanche comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

OpenText LoadRunner Profess...
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
4th
Average Rating
8.4
Reviews Sentiment
6.4
Number of Reviews
80
Ranking in other categories
Load Testing Tools (4th)
Spirent Avalanche
Ranking in Performance Testing Tools
16th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of May 2025, in the Performance Testing Tools category, the mindshare of OpenText LoadRunner Professional is 13.5%, down from 13.9% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Spirent Avalanche is 1.0%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Performance Testing Tools
 

Featured Reviews

HelenSague - PeerSpot reviewer
A sophisticated tool that supports many languages and works with all kinds of applications
I do not have any big challenges with LoadRunner. I only have some issues with load generators. It is a very common issue, and I hope it will be resolved in the latest release. For example, when we start to run our tests, users get the message that the load generator exceeded 80% of the CPU utilization. Even when the number of users is less, we get these messages. I am trying to resolve it, but it is not going. It is annoying. It is not a failure, but I hope that it will be resolved. IBM WebSphere MQ testing can be a bit challenging. It can handle that, but I hope that they will build more and more capabilities. We do a huge amount of testing for messaging. Just like aviation, the railway industry is based on messaging. There is messaging to build trains and messaging to create some bills. There are many train movements. Everything involves messaging. I wish that it will be developed more for IBM WebSphere testing. Monitoring is okay, but for testing, I currently have to create Java users. I have to load a lot of libraries from IBM WebSphere and so on.
reviewer1153692 - PeerSpot reviewer
Quality traffic testing and is reasonably priced
I find network traffic testing the most valuable feature The solution could improve by increasing the Gbps speeds and by having better support for storage. I have been using the solution for one and a half years. The price of the solution is reasonable. I rate Spirent Avalanche a nine out of…

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The ability to do multithreading. That's available in any performance testing tool, but the number of protocols that this particular tool supports has been very good."
"Very useful for finding out how the system responds to load, stress, and normal situations, as well as benchmarking with other industry competitors. It also improved our response time, memory delegation, and CPU delegation. In addition, we used LoadRunner to optimize our database and website."
"What we like the most is that it integrates with UC."
"The number of protocols that it supports, and especially, for example, when it talks about SAP GUI-based performance testing."
"One of the most valuable features of LoadRunner Professional is the wide range of protocols it supports, especially the web user v user types."
"I like the user interface. I like the way we can divide our scenarios and can tune them. The integration with the quality center is great. These features are really good."
"Scaling is definitely one of the best features of this solution. There are no issues scaling to 10,000 or 20,000 concurrent users."
"It provides clients with an understanding of application and system performance."
"I find network traffic testing the most valuable feature."
 

Cons

"There should be more integration with more open-source platforms."
"The solution uses a lot of memory and then it dies. It's difficult to work with the solution sometimes when you run a scenario it dies. They need to make the solution lighter somehow."
"Licensing costs could be reduced."
"The flexibility could be improved."
"The price of this solution should be cheaper."
"In terms of improvement, it lacks mobile testing features present in some competitors, like GitMatters, which I find valuable."
"The pricing could be lower."
"LoadRunner experiences high resource utilization. Even though we have machines with higher configurations, I've observed this behavior. Heavy traffic recording results in the tool hanging. So heavy traffic recording makes the tool slow."
"The solution could improve by increasing the Gbps speeds and by having better support for storage."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"OpenText LoadRunner Enterprise's pricing is reasonable."
"The licensing is on a yearly basis and is relatively expensive."
"It is a high-cost investment, particularly for companies with small budgets or limited testing needs."
"There is an annual license required to use Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional. There are not any additional costs other than the licensing fees to use it."
"When you compare the cost of other tools such as NeoLoad and LoadNinja, the cost of LoadRunner is on the expensive side. As a result, we are currently considering going with NeoLoad."
"I don't know the licensing cost, but I think that you would get a discount for normal usage. I think there are different yearly options for different types of usage. It is not only how many users, but also whether it is shareable or not and other criteria involved in each feature. There are additional fees for the users and hardware linked to the processing."
"LoadRunner Professional's licensing costs are on the higher side, apart from the Community Edition."
"LoadRunner is more expensive than some competing products."
"The price of the solution is reasonable."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Performance Testing Tools solutions are best for your needs.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Comparison Review

it_user104961 - PeerSpot reviewer
Apr 13, 2014
LoadRunner vs NeoLoad
The six phases of an IT project Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent (the performance tester) Praise and rewards for the incompetent non-participants This article has been put together as part of an evaluation of the performance test tools NeoLoad and…
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
17%
Computer Software Company
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
Healthcare Company
7%
No data available
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What do you like most about Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
When designing a workload model offers a good range of possibilities for creating goal-oriented scenarios, which helps us understand and meet SLAs.
What needs improvement with Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional?
Technical support needs to be faster, and the pricing should be more competitive. The virtual table server feature should be reintroduced. Some AI capabilities should be added. There should be an '...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Micro Focus LoadRunner Professional, Micro Focus LoadRunner, HPE LoadRunner, LoadRunner
Avalanche
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

JetBlue, GOME, Australian Red Cross Blood Service, RMIT University, Virgin Media
ditno
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, Tricentis, Perforce and others in Performance Testing Tools. Updated: April 2025.
851,604 professionals have used our research since 2012.